Merv, I understand what you are saying. But you have to look at Augustine’s contrast. He is contrasting God’s creation to the way we see things happening today. He is not saying in this passage that a day or even a week is a long time. He talks about stages and steps not being required. He says the ages were not established at the plodding pace at which they now pass. Creation did not take place slowly… why not ? there was no need for a slow development to be implanted. It seems clear to me that his reference to “slowly” is the “plodding pace at which they now pass”. I’m not sure it is a good argument to suggest that no passage of time means what you are suggesting; it could refer to the fact that on each day, when God created, the creation was instant, for that day. But I agree that Augustine is also making the point that the process of creation itself is not limited by the laws of biology or physics or time, since it created those laws outside of their control.
The ongoing research, discussions, and debates on Origins and Evolution continue to probe into their many layered mysteries. For many, the matter is pretty much a done deal—except for the penetrating specificities of the processes involved of course. And this is fine, since science ceaselessly probes ever deeper into the complex mysteries of nature. However, we must not be naive and believe that other pertinent areas of the science/faith paradigm have been overlooked. As you rightfully stated, “what if there are other examples that are less clear cut and that might offer alternative models of creative tension or outright conflict?” Investigation in these other areas of the science-religion conflict (psychology, criminology, judicial science) has also been meticulously explored and has similarly come to fruition. I agree that we must be prudent about the status of scientific knowledge. Your declaration that, “science changes and it changes in ways that suggest it cannot be invariably truth-tracking” is well noted, however, this was more of a significant factor in past centuries. Today scientific explanations are pretty much complete within their various domains, and although there is something more going on than science can detect, philosophic explanations are what remain as the pertinent constituents. Ethical and moral considerations are seriously investigated in the humanities and the relevant psychological factors are deliberated. With all due respect, this area of Augustine’s priorities are well accounted for.
In this regard many in scientific and religious circles will not accept any concord, complementary ideals, or even overlapping perspectives on the world. These typical “intellectuals” advocate that science and religion continue to occupy separate spheres of existence. For this reason, peaceful relations with these types (in both groups) will not produce what you call—“good” or “justifiable conflicts.” Alternatively, the other types (in both groups) have "a recognizable identity in science-religion discussions and have been labeled, often in pejorative terms, as “accommodationists” or “neo-harmonizers”—appropriately, they take the concordist or reconciliatory position to move the process forward. Hence the makeup of the feet and toes made of part iron and part clay—the statue of Daniel’s interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of succeeding world empires. The “stone,” cut without hands that strikes the statue on its feet made of part iron and part clay is none other than Jesus Christ who shatters the fragile bond holding together these two opposing forces and contradictory ideologies.
Therefore it should be said that both irenic positions have truth value: (1) The strong irenic position states that, “conflict between science and religion is impossible because there is only one ultimate truth about things, and if both science and religion are accessing this truth, conflict between them is not possible.” And (2) the weak irenic position confirms “that concord between science and religion has certainly been true for much of Western history, but that the peace between science and religion is more a matter of contingent historical circumstances. It is not that conflict is impossible for some set of principled reasons; it is just that the content of science for much of history past has just happened not to conflict with religion.” Having said that, if any discrepancies arise, through verifiable evidence and scientific reasoning false doctrine should be easily exposed. Professor Harrison has suggested that “potential science-religion conflicts need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.” Although, with all forthrightness—considering the increase in knowledge, and the times we live in—many science-religion conflicts are being made manifest collectively.
The declaration that, “… the weak irenic position might also prompt us to look closely at the details of current scientific claims, with the possibility that some aspects of a general theory might be religiously acceptable, but others not,” is to be forcefully advocated. This position would certainly provide the necessary frame of mind to ascertain that some religious claims are decidedly false. Some here, at BioLogos, would accordingly benefit and be convincingly enlightened if they only had an open mind instead of being rigidly dogmatic.
Alternatively, it is to be understood that, “Specifically in the case of evolutionary theory, the argument could be that while there is an undoubted scientific consensus about the truth of evolution it would not follow, of necessity, that Christian thinking must adapt itself to this reality. It would rather be a matter of considering the case on its merits, of scrutinizing every element of the theory and its variations, and of considering whether all or some or none were compatible with core Christian beliefs. (And from the assumption that there are “core” Christian beliefs it follows that some traditional doctrines may be dispensable.)” The truthfulness and openness of this blog post is to be commended in the highest degree—since many are willing to come forward with the facts.
Furthermore, I would like others to consider the opinion (for me it is fact) that the individual different sciences each operate on behalf of their own specific methodologies. As such, by default, they must abide by the structured hierarchical establishment of philosophic administrative protocol. This implies that if administrative protocol calls for biology to discuss evolution—specifically natural selection—in terms other than teleological, it must abide by this standard protocol. My point is that biology does not use teleological terms and definitions because teleology is a philosophical consideration. Thus, while many may be endlessly running around chasing their tails they should stop and consider the suggestion that biologists understand the veracity of teleology, however, professionally, they cannot discuss evolution in those terms.
And indeed, taking into account epigenetics and environmental mechanisms we move beyond the basic assumptions of neo-Darwinism and into a whole new field of inquiry. That epigenetics seems to strongly support a built-in teleology shouldn’t be viewed as being in opposition to neo-Darwinism. Instead, epigenetics should be treated as a distinct science specialized in the specific characteristics of a new field of evolution theory. Falk, Venema, Applegate, etc., must surely understand these categorical considerations?
Moreover, concerns about the apparent randomness and directionlessness of evolutionary processes are baseless taking into account stochastic considerations directed by the internal environment and the external ecological processes influencing these changes.
Professor Harrison, is this not an example of what your suggesting here?—That, "Some scientific theories claim empirical adequacy rather than “truth.”
Finally, Van Fraassen’s statement “To present a theory is to specify a family of structures, its models; and secondly, to specify certain parts of those models (the empirical substructures) as candidates for the direct representation of observable phenomena,” is pertinent here. (Van Fraassen - 1980, 64) Considerations regarding the hierarchical establishment of the philosophic administration, and, its direction and management of the structured scientific community, provides a “God’s Eye” view from the establishment’s nerve center. My theory is that the answers and evidence to our deepest metaphysical questions lie here—in the Administrative Faculty of the University—waiting for the right moment to be disclosed.
I appreciate the reference to Augustine (and indeed previous theologians) who endeavoured to articulate the attribute of God as Creator. My reading is that in order to ensure we understood God is not subject to time (or the creation, in current terminology to include time and space, and all therein) Augustine indicates “instantaneous” as another way of saying “independent of what we know as time”.
I am intrigued by “seeds” used as some type of analogy in the time-independent acts of creation - I also find Gen1 to appear as if the writer is using the normal meaning of day - I suggest this was not to limit God to a timetable, nor to place an obvious contradiction (no sun, yet we have days). My take is the importance of showing what the Sabbath meant, and what “resting” and “worship” were intended to be for Israel and now for the Church.
Johnz, Personally I remained non-committed on evolution for 20 years after I finished a Ph.D. in biochemistry (and was doing research.) I was raised in fundamentalism, although no big deal was made about evolution. I don’t think I had any idealogical commitment - I was just curious to see how it turned out. It was the results of genomic sequencing that settled the matter for me. I didn’t do genomic sequencing in my research, but I did plenty of analyzing sequences, genetic engineering of yeast (I helped map a physically map a gene on a yeast chromosome just in time to see the chromosome be the first eukaryotic chromosome sequenced) (by the yeast project,) and during a long collaboration with cancer researchers I read a lot of papers on human genomics.
The question of how similar the human and chimp genomes are has been the subject of some serious obscurantism by the anti-evolution folks. There are significant tracts where there are large numbers of repeats, and it is hard to tell which repeats should be lined up with each other - so they say that it all doesn’t align. In fact it can be aligned in a lot of different ways - it’s just hard to tell which one is the best.
It does matter whether you are involved in research in a given area. You know the methods and what their limitations are. You hear countless seminars read thousands of papers over many years and that makes a big difference in being able to interpret and be critical of them. And it’s not just in grad school that you get better at it. I had a lot more sense of how to interpret results 20 years out of grad school than I did when I got my Ph.D.
It’s not a simple matter of similarities in genomes. It’s the specific nature of those similarities - in many cases we have a very good idea how a particular kind of sequence comes about - they have typical features that identify the kind of event that produced them. And it’s also the huge number of similarities - many millions, and the fact that most of them don’t just occur in the genomes of two species but multiple species in a pattern of presence and absence that fits the phylogeny.
There is an essay I wrote on the transposon evidence with a figure made in one of the genome browsers here: The Art of the Soluble: Transposable Elements and Common Descent of Humans and other Primates
There is another post there on the Out of Africa story and the Y chromosome and mtDNA evidence.
Thanks to all for your responses. Here are few further brief comments, trying to pick up on a some of the ideas put forward by various respondents.
JohnZ. On the issue of how to read Augustine on instantaneous vs protracted creation, don’t take my word for it. Just read any of the introductions to English translations of Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram. Or google ‘Augustine seminal reasons’.
Also, as Merv suggests, the point is not to try to make Augustine a precocious evolutionist, but to show that, historically, Christians have read Genesis in a variety of ways, responding to the two creations stories in Genesis, as well as contemporary philosophical understandings of the origins and development of life.
On the ‘days’ of Genesis 1, one possibility, noted by GJDS, relates this to the idea of sabbath. Again, it’s worth reading what biblical scholars have to say about this.
Finally, Augustine’s reference to ‘seminal (or causal) reasons’ and number (a nod in the direction of one of his favourite passages in Wisdom 11.21, according to which God created everything in number, weight, and measure) suggests the use of what we would call secondary causes in the processes of creation.
Agree that God is not subject to time nor to the laws he created in creation. About “the normal meaning of the day”… created by genesis, or was genesis subject or limited to the normal meaning? Genesis was not written to show what the Sabbath meant. The Sabbath came out of Genesis… Genesis did not come out of the Sabbath. If Genesis is fiction, then even the historical basis for the Sabbath loses its kick.
Preston, congrats on your gene sequencing projects. No one is contesting the similarities in genomes. It is the tendency to over estimate the similarities that demonstrates an inherent bias. If a similarity is not obvious, then in terms of gene sequencing, there is obviously not an obvious similarity. Perhaps there could be a contrived similarity, but like the fingers of a frog compared to fingers of mammals the similarity is belied because of the different way the similarity is produced. The original similarity estimate was 99%. Then the similarity devolved to 96.5%. But the size difference increases the disimilarity by another 8%. So there is still lots of similarity… perhaps 87%. Although some would argue the actual similarity when all factors are connsidered, is about 70%. Still lots of similarities even at 70%. But also lots of differences. Hundreds of millions of base pair differences. Not a small number.
When you get wrapped up in the detailed research, sometimes the bigger picture is lost.
Your article indicated that the more closely related some species are, the more likely their transposons will be located in the same place in the genome. Sure, but that’s kind of circular reasoning if the the affect of the inserted transposons has the same impact. We expect the genome to impact the homology and physiology of the organism. Different locations of transposons in the genome seem to lead to genetic diseases you imply. So the location of transposon is essential to the existence and survival. Of course it has to be in the same or similar location. Just like all animals need protein and vitamins and energy to grow and survive, they need transposons in particular locations for their identity to be expressed.
Peter H, I think I have said what I want to say about Augustine and his explanation of creation. I don’t want to keep repeating myself. I realize and never thought otherwise that no evolutionist is trying to turn Augustine into an evolutionist. I have no comment on causal reasons and number - it’s significance seems contrived but of course, physical reality will be measureable.
I do want to mention however, that the common perception of two creation stories in Genesis is incorrect. It is the same story told with two different levels of detail. This often happens in scripture, including in the pentateuch, but also in Joshua and Judges. (and also in the gospels.) Same story - different angles.
I do not follow your comment, esp on the Sabbath. On “days” in Genesis, almost all commentators, going back to Patristic writings, would agree that God (and His acts) would not be restricted by time (or subject to timetables), and Genesis 1 does not define “day” in any way that would contradict our understanding of day and night (the sun is involved in this).
Keeping the Sabbath however, is one of the Ten Commandments, and Hebrews discusses its meaning and importance. I am suggesting the author of Genesis also understood this and the account becomes very deep (and rich in meaning) if we understood the “working” week as preceding the “Sabbath rest” - so much so, that God Himself is described as working until the Sabbath.
@GJDS Sorry about being obscure. As I said, I agree that God is not by his nature, subject to time. God could have created everything in an instant, or have taken billions of years. He is not subject to time. But God wanted us to know that he did things over a period of time, not all in one day, nor in an abstract time period, but a definable period of time. The time is described as very short - only one week. This week would seem like an instant in time, compared to years and ages. Nevertheless, beyond that, we don’t know if God spent all day creating, like he might have spent walking around in the garden with Adam and Eve, or if at some point in the day, he spoke, it happened, and then God waited to the next day for the next part. Nor does it really matter.
I personally am not definite in my understanding about the creation of heavens and earth, which appears to possibly predate time, while light(possibly energy) seems to be created on the first day.
I believe it is possible that the earth began rotating when the light was created, so that days would have started before the sun appeared. This is pure speculation, of course, but it is valid enough to counter the thought that days could not have existed before the sun appeared. Or/and, an additional possibility is that previous days prior to the sun creation, were of a different length, or that the earth rotated more slowly.
All that speculation aside, I believe that Genesis contains the true story of creation, and that Genesis 1 was not written in order to justify a seven day week, but rather in reverse, that the seven day week was based on Genesis 1. In other words, it was not that people were keeping the sabbath and then wondered how to write Genesis 1. Rather, they imitated God, who had already described his process of creation, including His day of rest at the end of it.
I hope this is more clear.
PHarrison, I didn’t think I wanted to comment on Augustine anymore, but I read a comment in one of these threads yesterday, that afterall did seem to hint at placing Augustine in some type of evolutionist camp, and so puts up an exception to the rule that evolutionists don’t try to turn Augustine into a primitive or precocious evolutionist.
But the real comment I wanted to add is in reference to your comments on seminal or causal reasons. We often refer to the fact that God did not just create Adam, but he created the entire human race, including you and I. We understand that God does this thru secondary causes such as conception and birth. Yet God is the creator, and we are not here merely by accident. Acknowleding this type of creation gives praise to God. Usually we distinguish this from original creation, in which God supercedes the natural processes and causes that he created in the first place. Teasing out when God supercedes and when he uses the causes he created is our struggle. Can we only use one method, such as a naturalistic method to distinguish between the two? Is that what we are limited to?
Thanks for your clarification. I agree that much of what is discussed regarding Gen1 and 2 is speculative. My outlook is motivated more by the notion that whatever is written in the Bible is there for our instruction, edification and guidance. In this sense, the Sabbath is part of the statement, “in the beginning God created the heavens and earth”. I cannot speak to “God walked all day” as I do not see the point is such speculation. However the entire lesson of the Gospels is the Salvation of humanity through Christ. In this context, I understand Genesis to mean that God works for our Salvation until we enter the Sabbath rest - the latter is the goal, and it is because of this, it is one of the Ten Commandments.
Thanks for your input; I hope this closes our discussion of this topic.
The ten commandments have the “keep the Sabbath and do not work on it”, merely because God wants us to enter our final sabbath rest? Hmm, sounds rather far-fetched. There are some beautiful connections, but the ten commandments were there to guide us how to live, both in honor and love to God, and in respect and love for fellow man. So that eternal Sabbath rest is a reflection of the sabbath God commanded his people to keep, which is a reflection of the rest God had after his original creating work. I don’t think you can work this backward.
Sorry about the fact I had another word or two to say…
“… merely because God wants us to enter our final sabbath rest? Hmm, sounds rather far-fetched.”
The central message of Christianity is Salvation - this is not “merely because…”, and not far fetched and by no means worked backwards. Perhaps it would be wise to spend time understanding the purpose of Christ’s sacrifice instead of obsessing on what you admit is mostly speculation regarding Gen 1 and 2.
I have spent most of my life in the context of Christ’s sacrifice, so if I do not understand it, then it would surprise me. I agree the central message of scripture is salvation. But this is in the context of obedience. In other words, salvation is necessary because we do not obey God on our own. We need God’s spirit within us to obey. Certainly Genesis already talks about the seed of the woman will crush the serpent (Satan). This is the first prophecy already of Christ and his victory over sin and death. This continues throughout scripture with about 400 prophecies of the Messiah. The messiah Jesus came to free us from sin, both from the guilt of sin (Christ paid for that), and from the power of sin (the Spirit gives us power). Salvation is not because of a command to obey the Sabbath - I agree with that… but Salvation can only be called a sabbath rest because it refers to the completion of work, the work of creation in the beginning, and the completion of man’s work during the week.
Sabbath originally is associated with the seventh day, first as found in Genesis 1, and then also as found in later sabbath observance on a weekly basis, also some additional sabbaths such as sabbath of sabbaths, and then for some events of seven years, and eventually associated with giving the land rest, freedom to slaves, and the year of jubilee in which land was returned to original owners. In the new testament it also refers to that eternal sabbath rest, Hebrews 4:9, which ironically could also refer to a practical advice to continue to keep the weekly sabbath because of the way it is written. But maybe not, maybe it only refers to the rest that is a relief from sin, although it seems to refer to a rest from works primarily. Most mentions of sabbath in the new testament simply refer to the ordinary seventh day sabbath.
Most of Hebrews 4 talks about “rest” and only once does that get equated with sabbath… but maybe this is beside the point. If God instituted the sabbath for Moses and Israel only because he planned a symbol of the eternal rest, then scripture does not seem to indicate it anywhere… it is speculation. How it is revealed to us, is that God created in six days and rested, and wanted Israel to rest in the same way, both for their own benefit, and to remember God’s power and authority. Remember the sabbath to keep it holy, for in six days, God created the heavens and earth and everything in them, and rested the seventh day. Only later do we find an analogy to the sabbath and to “resting” in reference to the rest of God’s peace, and the eternal rest.
I’m glad you understand the central message of scripture as Salvation… but salvation is in the context of what we are saved from, and is in the context of who saved us, and also in the context of our acceptance of this salvation, and in the context of our obedience in our acceptance. God has accomplished our salvation, just as God originally accomplished his creation, and has rested from that.
There is little in your response that I would debate or indeed disagree - thus I cannot make any other comment. The gist of this discussion has been on perhaps seeing a deeper significance in “days” as mentioned in Genesis. Thanks for your comments.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.